The workshop design

I started the first workshop with a larger session on cultural models and cultural differences using the Hofstede and Lewis models, following the participants’ interests. However, the categorisation of national cultures onto a numerical scale for each dimension caused objections. The participants pointed out that the stereotyping character of the Hofstede and Lewis models did not match with their own behaviour or how they perceived the other cultural group to act. This confirmed my view on the cultural group models as characterised in Chapter 3 and I changed the flow in the second workshop following the Cultural Intelligence (CQ) model. I still responded to the demand on learning about cultural differences in introducing the various cultural dimensions, taking Hofstede and Lewis models as reference, but without using any country scales. The cultural dimensions, their definitions and characteristics helped participants to understand cross-cultural situations and describe them in a non-judgmental way, which should improve their cultural competence (see also the Perception Management factor of the GCI in Chapter 3.2.3). However, the workshop should follow the same flow and sequence that I had in mind for the overall BDaC programme. It should demonstrate as a role model how the learning and change process in the BDaC programme is supposed to happen. The workshop has two roles in the programme: in being part of the programme it reflects on the current situation through critical incident analysis and triggers the following actions in the programme, and it shows by example in which way the programme becomes effective, following a CQ process and mindset. Figure 6-2 illustrates the workshop flow based on the CQ model.

91 Figure 6-2 CQ model as basis for cross cultural workshop

I used the Cultural Intelligence concept as framework to define stages in the process, starting with the cultural drive and the motivation as enabler and the necessity to gain outperforming results in a multi-cultural team in asking all participants on their expectations. Particularly the Local/European participants showed a large interest in understanding the Asian/Chinese culture. The motivational aspect is crucial to work successfully in a multi- cultural environment (Van Dyne, et al. 2010). People who join the programme and participate in the workshop should become clear about their interest, objectives and expectations. Just participating with a distant mindset would not initiate the trigger for business transformation. The team members from both organisations need to become aware that change in the cross-cultural collaboration only happens if they are going to take the initiative, showing the interest, confidence and drive to adapt cross-culturally. For the motivational aspect it made a difference whether participants chose to join the workshop or whether they were sent from their supervisors. In some cases in the workshop trials and later in the BDaC project I had to work out the motivation with individuals beforehand. Some Huawei team members might join the workshop as an obligation to their customers. The capability and easiness to express an individual’s needs and expectations is subject to the person’s cultural background as cultural models suggest and experiences confirm. A person is required that is trusted by the cultural group with the capability of motivating and communicating to this group and its individuals on the benefits of the workshop for the business and the enrichment for the group and the individual on their cultural understanding.

92

I started to work with Chinese colleagues who could act as role models for the cross-cultural motivation. This work has been the foundation for the Cultural Broker concept and implementation. Similarly, motivational challenges could occur on the customer side in cases where participants intended to use the workshop primarily for complaining. Also in this case a mediator, or ‘broker’ helped to provide the ‘right’ understanding of the purpose in engaging with an open mindset for the other culture.

The second stage in the CQ model, the cultural knowledge, provides the understanding of cross-cultural issues and differences. Within the workshop I split this part in two agenda items, starting with the general understanding about cultural aspects and the dimensions as they are characterised in the different cultural models. With this I provide a language and a set of attributes that help to describe differences in traits and behaviour that we observe in a cultural context. This part intended to raise the group’s awareness for cross-cultural incidents and how to deal with them when they occur.

This introduction on cultural terms and situations was followed by an exchange of experiences, where participants reflected on their own culture and related behaviour in situations when they met other cultures and their characteristics. In a second step the focus was moved to critical issues in the project. Participants were asked beforehand in the workshop invitation to think about incidents that they perceived as culturally affected. During the following intervention the teams analysed the situations with the cultural knowledge background and worked on possible solutions and ways to overcome conflict or barriers in the project.

93

This part on CQ Strategy on analysing the incidents and planning the next steps got an even larger space later in the BDaC programmes as they were focused on a single delivery project. After the analysis the participants shared their insights and open questions. At that point the cultural models helped to explain incidents that the participants had experienced. I avoided any of the national scoring and stereotyping components of the cultural group models but focused the team on self-reflection of the cultural experiences, providing suggestions through the models for the group discussion on their applicability.

Finally, the team worked out an action plan based on their suggestions on how to overcome cross-cultural issues in their collaboration and how to adjust their behaviours accordingly. Table 6-12 shows the agenda of the second of the workshop trials. The BDaC progam used a similar flow in the workshops enriched by some further interventions.

Intercultural workshop agenda

Agenda item CQ model reference

Participants’ expectation and engagement CQ Drive; Motivation Definition of Culture; Introduction of cultural dimensions

Cultural Awareness; examples of cultural differences

CQ Knowledge part 1

Individual and team cultural experiences

(a) general - reflection on own culture/other cultures (b) issues in the project / critical incidents

CQ Strategy

Cultural Models / Understanding the differences CQ Knowledge part 2

Action Planning CQ Action; change of

behaviour Table 6-12 Intercultural workshop agenda

During the workshop the participants practiced culturally competent thinking and behaviour in showing empathy, demonstrating respect and trust and providing the feeling of inclusiveness to all team members. Techniques on non-violent communication in observing without judging, reflecting on the feelings and needs, and clearly expressing their requests helped to define a common way of working. This kind of team agreement was later developed towards a Code of Conduct in the BDaC programmes.

94

At the end of the validation phase I combined the insights from the Huawei internal ICLS and workshops with the workshop experiences on interventions with Huawei and Vodafone to create the Business Development across Cultures (BDaC) programme as the fundament for exploring the hypotheses of the research study.